DPRK Threatens To Launch Pre-Emptive Strike Against U.S.

[Purveyor]

Source: Xinhua

PYONGYANG, June 15 (Xinhua) -- The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) has warned it would launch a pre-emptive attack against the United States.

Pak Jae Gyong, vice-minister of the DPRK People's Armed Forces, made the remark at a mass rally that attracted some 10,000 people to denounce a newly endorsed U.N. Security Council Resolution, the official KCNA news agency said Monday.

"Under the present situation where the Korean People's Army (KPA) is technically at war with the U.S. imperialists, and as the Armistice Agreement has lost its legal binding force, the KPA will promptly exercise the right to a pre-emptive strike to beat back the enemies' slightest provocation," Pak said.

He threatened to deliver blows to the "vital parts of the U.S." and "wipe out all its imperialist aggressor troops no matter where they are in the world."

Meanwhile, Kim Ki Nam, secretary of the Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Korea, told the rally that the U.N. resolution was "another grave provocation."

"This is, in essence, a wicked pressure offensive launched by the U.S. imperialists to disarm the DPRK, strangle its economy and undermine its ideology and system," Kim said.

The DPRK will respond to any attempt to blockade it with "resolute and deadly blows," he said.

Read more: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-06/15/content_11547835.htm

[liberalmuse]

1. Oh my god.

Thank you, Bush.

[deminwi]

4. You can't blame this on Bush

These wack jobs have been like that long before Bush was even in politics. One of my older brothers served on the DMZ back in the late 1970s and he said that it was common knowledge that the North Koreans were wanting to have a war with the US.

[EFerrari]

6. And Bush did zip in 8 years to handle them.

[deminwi]

9. What can you do to handle them?

I am sure the Obama administration would love your input. China is the only country that can keep these idiots under control. North Korea gets too much money from China to ignore any demands that the Chinese would give them.

[EFerrari]

12. It's too bad we had no relationship with China that we can use

to help secure these idiots. :sarcasm:

[deminwi]

13. Our relationship with China is just fine

As long as we owe them money, they will ensure that the North Koreans do nothing more than talk BS.

You still haven't provided a solution, you made it sound so easy in one of your earlier posts. Of course, it's easy when you don't have to provide an actual answer.

[tomm2thumbs]

15. Welcome to DU !!!

Hope you are finding it an interesting and insightful place to discuss - just thought I'd say 'welcome'.

[EFerrari]

20. That's backward. We owe them money, they are owed a favor.

But even that half wit loser could have cut a deal with them to keep the Koreans in line. He was too busy cutting brush, eating cake and screwing the economy to ask for anything so simple.

Typical Bush.

[Regret My New Name]

22. Indeed, but even if he did...

I tend to doubt it would change things today. NK has to do this because it's all they really have, ya know? No matter what Obama does, we will still have a similar situation in eight years... Well, unless Obama(or anyone) some how manages to get NK to change its priorities so that it doesn't have to continue this silliness.

[merwin]

44. We owe them money. What if we decide to not pay them?

All we'd have to do is pull out the dictatorship card, and declare them to be the new Cuba.

I am willing to bet there is a mutual fear between both countries of pissing each other off too much.

[dipsydoodle]

54. The only problem

with deciding not to honour the debt would be the death of the US$ anywhere outside of the USA so its an unlikely event.

[Jester Messiah]

69. They'd kick our asses.

Believe it.

[Regret My New Name]

82. How so?

I don't think anyone wants nuclear war...

[Jester Messiah]

87. They've got the conventional forces to bring the fight to US soil.

Remember, China is the reason that there are currently two Koreas. They haven't been sitting on their hands since then, and they've had a tremendous supply of ready cash thanks to our insatiable spending from the Bank of Chinese Debt. Also, our forces are spread wafer-thin and exhausted from fighting on two fronts for an extended period of time, and our stockpile of war materiel is nowhere near what would be needed to take on such a power.

Bottom line, China is a permanent fixture on the do-not-fuck-with list.

[zonkers]

88. Off topic... they are currently remaking that awful film "Red Dawn" with China as the invading

country. edited.

[Regret My New Name]

91. That would require lots of logistical capablilities.

Also, the US navy and Air Force isn't spread all that thin. Not to mention, I bet the Chinese would find it rather painful to occupy the US mainland even if they were able to get here in significant quantities. We shouldn't forget that China has its share of internal problems too. I'm betting if for some reason hostilities did break out between the US and China then it would end in nuclear exchanges...which no one wants. Even if nuclear exchanges didn't happen, all we have to do is take a look at world war II as an example of the US not not being prepared for war, but ultimately end up pumping out massive quantities of war goods. We can only assume that if a conventional war was to break out between China and the US then it would mobilize the entire country behind the war effort... aye?

[Pavulon]

93. We can kill every human in china and NK

in an hour. SAC may not be out flying jets around but ohio class, icbm, and aid drop could destroy humanity there in short order. China is third world, they are in no way matched to win an conventional or nuclear with the US or Russia for that matter.

China is a body shop, they have people, that is the Soviet model, you know the one we spent the last 60 years planning to fight.

Neither one of these nations are ready to kick off a world war at the moment.

[benEzra]

97. I doubt it. We could cause catastrophic damage, yes...

but kill everyone in China, no. We don't have that kind of megatonnage (and probably never did even at the height of the Cold War). Most of our current weapons are half a megaton or smaller, and China is an immense country. NK is a whole lot smaller, but so much of their important stuff is in underground complexes God knows where.

NK is much more worrisome IMO (at least in the short term) because unlike China, which would stand to lose 50 years' worth of infrastructure and economic/industrial development in a nuclear war, NK is a whole lot less rational and has a whole lot less to lose. My personal view is that this is mostly bombast to demonstrate to the world and the NK people how badass the Great Leader's chosen son is, but there is that bit of doubt that they could be just a teeny bit serious.

[Pavulon]

99. 3 - 5000 MT spinning

more in stockpile. Considering population centers and density that would go a very long way in killing hundreds of millions of people. That said there is little chance of this happening. Dropping b61s into the dirt and popping them at 500kt fixes underground stuff.

Many would die from famine and disaster from shattering their country.

Either way no one is doing anything drastic.

[AlphaCentauri]

108. They probably never think about going to war

we maybe the only ones prepared to destroy those countries but risking to destroy our selves with the pollution generated after that war.

[Pavulon]

113. No they are popping nukes to be peaceful...cultural difference..

we detonated many hundreds of nuclear weapons, many in nevada above ground and the world did not end. Again, this is not a space that allows fucking around. If they launch at the us chino or russia they will all die.

[AlphaCentauri]

127. Nothing in Nevada was like Chernobyl

otherwise I wouldn't go play sluts so often.

[Regret My New Name]

128. Oh snap!

[hack89]

104. No they don't

no way in hell they get across the Pacific. Once they are beyond land based air coverage they are dead meat from US carrier air power. That and our nuclear subs will carve them to pieces.

[Jester Messiah]

105. Yeah... cuz they don't have access to ship-killer missiles and subs...

Wake up, man. As invincible as we like to portray ourselves to be, we aren't. I'm not saying the Chinese would roll right over us, but it would be a fair fight.

[hack89]

107. Some military basics

Ship killer missiles have to get with-in range of ships to kill them. A Sunburn missile has a range less than a 100 miles. A F-18 carrying a Harpoon missile has a combat radius of nearly 500 miles (more with air-to air refueling) - the missile has a range similar to the Sunburn. A B-52 carrying 16 Harpoons has an unlimited range. Since the Chinese have no carriers they would be sitting ducks.

As for the subs - nukes are the only subs with the range to venture far from the coast. Too bad the Chinese only have two modern nukes. Diesel electric subs don't have the speed or fuel capacity to fight a modern mid-Pacific naval battle.

[Jester Messiah]

118. Your condescension is unwarranted.

As is your presumption to know the full extent of the Chinese forces and capabilities, unless I'm addressing Mr. Bond. Additionally, you have no idea as to the allies they could bring to the fight. Further, their forces would be fresh and their stockpile undiminished, whereas ours (I remind you again) are quite the opposite after nigh on a decade of unceasing war. Saber rattling against China is a Bad Idea.

[dionysus]

120. no, there's no way they'd be able to get guys across an ocean without 95% of them ending up at the

bottom of it...

[JuliantheApostate]

122. "Bring the fight to US soil"

And how, pray tell, are Chinese going to get conventional forces to the US? Are they gonna swim? China doesn't have the amphibious forces to take Taiwan let alone the US. The only way China can take the fight to US soil is through nukes and in that scenario everyone loses. Don't worry China and the US aren't going to war anytime soon (certainly they aren't going to war over Dear Leader's crazy ass). The minute China thinks North Korea is gonna touch off a total war on their front door step, you'll see the PLA rolling into Pyongyang. China doesn't want or need that kind of bullshit right now. I think the only real danger is if the Chinese miscalculate and the North launches an invasion that catches everyone off guard, then you're going to see a real ugly mess on the Korean Peninsula that could make the 1st Korean War look like an after school special.

[alfredo]

81. There was a time during the 90's where the NK was allowing inspections

and 24/7 monitoring of its nuke facilities in trade for food and fuel, but bush cut the aid and NK cut off the UN cameras and kicked out inspectors. Of course bush cried "foul."

BTW, the nuke plants were made by ABB. At the time Donald Rumsfeld was on the board of directors.

[Deja Q]

86. Until they can find a way to ditch us...

all I can say is "good luck".

it's a symbiosis...

not to mention, their reputation is known worldwide. They are in a far worse position than we are, all things considered.

[heliarc]

45. Bush is fair game.

North Korea is threatening a pre-emptive strike exactly like ours against Iraq. And they would be right that we have weapons of mass destruction aimed at them... I've even heard people flippantly arguing that we should nuke them and acting serious about it afterwards because of the situation with the detained reporters.

So who's to blame for that sort of mentality? Dubya... D -U - B- Y- A Dubya is to blame for the Bush Doctrine which plainly states that we deem ourselves justified in premptive strikes on perceived enemies.

That diplomatic conundrum is Bush's cross to bear and no one else's.

[merwin]

42. You can't handle a crazy dictator.

No matter how you slice it, the best way is to cut them off at the trade routes and basically ignore them publically while keeping a close eye on them (hey, sometimes they do actually deliver on the craziness).

It's really a lot like Planktin in Spongebob. All talk, no actual effective plans to steal the Krabby Patty.

Damn, this is the exact moment I fully realize that being the parent of a 3 year old has changed me...

[EFerrari]

48. LOL! It will do that.

:)

[maseman]

101. Never thought I would hear a Spongebob war analogy

but I loved it!

[bloomington-lib]

8. They didn't have any nuclear weapons until Bush

[deminwi]

11. Just a matter of timing

Once again, I think that Bush was a disgrace of a President, but he wasn't in control of this. Clinton didn't do any better.

[niceypoo]

24. Clinton's policy had the reactors shut down

...and halted plutonium production. On March 7, 2001 Powell tried to continue successful policy of the Clinton administration with South Korean president Kim Dae-jung, and was rebuffed in by a swaggering moron Bush who instead opted for a policy of Sophism, arrogance, swaggering, bullying, belligerence and “go-it-alone”. Ten months later Bush made his idiotic "axis of evil" speech, which sealed North Korea's decision to go for nukes.

Next time you feel the urge to let Bush off the hook and blame, "Bad timing," do five minutes worth of research first.

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a030701fischermultilateral

[Tempest]

76. A blow to the body

And deminwi reels.

[struggle4progress]

25. Nope. In 94 Clinton cut a deal that froze NK's plutonium program; Bush dumped the deal in 02

as part of a general rejection of Clinton's foreign policy accomplishments, and NK resumed its plutonium program and finally tested a nuke. At the end of the Bush era, the Bush administration had reverted to the Clinton policy, while loudly proclaiming it was their own breakthrough

Chronology of U.S.-North Korean Nuclear and Missile Diplomacy
Nuclear/Ballistic Missile Nonproliferation
Fact Sheet, June 2009
... In 1994, faced with North Korea’s announced intent to withdraw from the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which requires non-nuclear weapon states to forswear the development and acquisition of nuclear weapons, the United States and North Korea signed the Agreed Framework. Under this agreement, Pyongyang committed to freezing its illicit plutonium weapons program in exchange for aid. Following the collapse of this agreement in 2002, North Korea claimed that it had withdrawn from the NPT in January 2003 and once again began operating its nuclear facilities.= ... http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron

AP, NBC repeated Bush's claim that Clinton's North Korea policy "didn't work," ignored that it halted plutonium production
October 12, 2006 7:51 pm ET
SUMMARY: The AP's Terence Hunt and NBC News' David Gregory both reported President Bush's "veiled swipe" at the Clinton administration's North Korea policy, in which Bush said, "I appreciate the efforts of previous administrations. It just didn't work." But neither noted that, following the Clinton administration's signing of the 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea, that country did not produce any plutonium until 2002, when the Bush administration abandoned the agreement ... http://mediamatters.org/research/200610120017

[Tempest]

77. The knockout punch

Deminwi hits the mat and doesn't get up.

Man, that was too easy.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[heliarc]

47. The Bush Doctrine plainly states...

That we are justified in attacking anyone from whom we perceive a threat? Pre-emptive attacks on any perceived threat... THAT is the diplomatic conundrum on which the North Koreans are capitalizing... They can threaten to attack us pre-emptively, because we did exactly that in Iraq, and any rational argument against a pre-emptive attack is crippled by that fact and the doctrine itself.

Bush is entirely to blame for this turn of events.

[DUlover2909]

49. Yeah we can. Bush was an idiot, this is happening and Obama has been in office only 5 months.

Everything is shrub's fault at this moment in history. Don't forget that. It's ALL HIS FAULT. This is what we get when we let Neocons hold public office: PROBLEMS. Start the blame game, please. Point those fingers and let her rip. Kick them when they're down because that's what they would do. Do unto others right? Do unto the others what they've blissfuly done unto you for eight years, whether it's right or wrong. Fuck them.

[jpak]

68. Fuck Bush and his cronies

n/t

[daleo]

89. It sounds like they have been wanting this war for over 30 years, then

They couldn't want it all that bad, if they have been waiting more than a generation.

[TankLV]

109. Oh yes you fucking can - PREEMPTIVE WAR is SOLELY AWOL WAR CRIMINAL BUSH'S CREATION!!!

go tell your fellow repukes that...

[Vidar]

123. Well Bush did deploy the vast majority of our forces elsewhere.

Of course, It's Obama who's keeping them there.

[roguevalley]

83. well, there goes Nome. :(

[babylonsister]

2. And I read today they are angry they aren't getting attention.

I think that's true, but they sound like they're 'out there'.

I wonder who is inspiring their PR? The father, son, or the darths and roves?

[EFerrari]

3. Yeah, right. Your momma.

[IndianaGreen]

5. Talking about suicide!

All of this saber rattling is due to Kim Jong Il naming his youngest son as his successor. Apparently some of the thugs there don't want another Kim as President.

[shraby]

7. What shape is our anti-ballistic missile program in?

The heat-seekers should be able to destroy anything they air-mail to us.

[grantcart]

10. well our eyes in the sky would be able to determine their intention

hours before an actual launch, and it would take hours for it to actually get to Alaska.




Japan would be a more likely, but equally illogical target.




Its all about attention, like the guy in HS who dyed his hair orange.

[shraby]

14. I would think California would be the target, with its

large population centers. What would they want to hit in Alaska? In my estimation little Kim's large ego would demand many casualties from the powerful United States

[grantcart]

27. Their missles would barely reach the outer shell of Alaska

That is if they worked


Nk doesn't have long range missles.

[shraby]

33. If I remember right, I just saw on tv a couple of weeks ago

that they have a long range missile, on the order of an ICBM

[grantcart]

40. Launched - but not successful

North Korea informed the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) that it will launch a "communications satellite" Kwangmyŏngsŏng-2 on a Unha-2 carrier rocket between April 4 and April 8, 2009;<13> however, security analysts anticipated it would be a test of a long-range ballistic missile that could reach potential Japanese or mainland US targets.<14> On April 5th 2009 the rocket was launched at around 02:30 hours UTC (11:30 hours KST).<15> The US Northern Command said that the first stage of the rocket fell into the Sea of Japan, while the other rocket stages as well as the payload fell into the Pacific Ocean, and no object entered orbit.<16><17> Later analysis indicated the rocket impacted 2,390 miles (3,850 km) from the launch site, and that second stage operated normally but the rocket's third stage failed to separate properly.<18> North Korea maintains the rocket successfully put its payload in orbit


Shorter range missles still have quality problems as well. All are aimed at SK and Japan.

[14thColony]

55. It was a failure

Like the two tries before it.

They have a handful of airframes, they haven't had one make a successful flight in 10 years of trying, they have ONE launch tower in the whole country, they will need years to miniaturize a nuke to fit in the (still unsuccessful) missile, they'll need to develop a stable re-entry vehicle to carry it, then they'll need a guidance system accurate enough to do better than hit within 10km of the intended target. And after all that, they might be able to hit somewhere in coastal Alaska or Hawaii.

They'd do better to FEDEX the nuke to Washington. Much cheaper and much higher chance of success.

The USG has an interest in outrageously overinflating the NK missile threat so we can continue the outrageously overinflated funding to the contractors working on our strategic missile defense program.

[MUAD_DIB]

23. Hours? Are they flyinging it by KAL? :b

An ICBM wouldn't have a few hours flight time.

[14thColony]

57. Deja vu

Read your post after I made my response. We seem to think alike, which is something that should deeply concern you... :-)

[merwin]

46. Exactly.

It comes down to a fear of being accepted by their peers, so they strut around to get attention and try to impress their crowd.

[14thColony]

56. Hours for it to get to Alaska?

If they're delivering the missile in an airliner maybe. More like 20-30 minutes from launch to impact.

Of course since they have only one launch tower in the whole country, and the missile has to be laboriously fueled from what are basically big jerry-cans, there would probably be days of warning.

[Blandocyte]

64. Getting the missle to the launch site

involves using water buffalo to pull the Glorious Cart it is rumored.

[14thColony]

65. Ahhh, your point is most valid

In that case the DoD needs funding now to develop a WBIW (Water Buffalo Interdiction Warfare) strategy. I'm sure a few billion would be enough to develop some way to stop a water buffalo.

[TankLV]

111. and Palin will see it all from her kitchen window!!!

she's SOOOO lucky...

[dysfunctional press]

73. seoul would be the most likely target.

or near the dmz where our troops are stationed.

[robinlynne]

31. You are joking. They wouldn't dare, anyway. OUr troops in the South might be a target,

but they aren't sending anything voer here. they would be removed from the map, simply.

[benEzra]

100. Our interceptors would stand a pretty good chance of stopping anything NK could throw, I'd think...

and the Aegis ships with the newer SM-3 missiles can hit ICBM's midcourse with a software and sensor upgrade, a capability that IIRC has already been demonstrated via the ASAT test, IF we have time to prep and position the ships.

Neither is enough to stop a big attack, but together, probably enough to stop a couple of city-busters tossed at California or Hawaii. NK can't throw enough warheads to overwhelm the interceptors like Russia (or even France) could, were they so inclined, and they don't have the countermeasures technology to spoof the system in any meaningful way.

[cliffordu]

16. Can those dipshits even get a warhead off the fucking GROUND, yet??

[14thColony]

58. Yes, the can. As long as...

they don't care if it works, and they don't care where it lands!

The only way they could SUCCESSFULLY get a nuke off the ground would be with a forklift, and even then I could tell you some stories about North Koreans and their 'aww shucks' moments with cranes. Funny stuff.

[benEzra]

102. Off the ground and into South Korea or Japan, possibly. To the USA, no

unless they go the aircraft route instead of the ICBM route, and that delivery method is obviously far more vulnerable midcourse. And I'm sure there are precautions against them smuggling one into Seoul and putting it in the cargo hold of a KAL flight.

One of the convenient things about nuclear warheads is that they produce a very low but detectable level of neutrons at very characteristic energies, and this makes smuggling attempts reasonably easy to detect with the right equipment. I can't imagine Seoul doesn't have such safeguards in place, considering their situation.

[Alamuti Lotus]

17. I've been seeing that headline for all of my life..

Bluster and bullshit aside (from all involved governments), the current "Korean War" is quite possibly the ideal for any conflict on the planet right now.

[SpartanDem]

18. This is hot air

they don't have the missile tech to hit us.

[frog92969]

19. So they're talking about using the bu$h doctrine?

Well, that's alright then.

[mbperrin]

28. Exactly! Pre-emptive strikes against perceived enemies.

So what's the prob?

[Pavulon]

94. The Unholy trinity..

SAC (or air dropped thermo nukes, now with no warning from B2), ICMB, and 18 Subs (thousands of nukes right there). Pretty much a slate wiper for them. Maybe they want to go jonestown, I am sure the other parties at the talks will be happy to see them off if they pull some shit.

[Canuckistanian]

21. Better keep the troops away from those sandbars off the coast

The only way NK can threaten any part of the US is to pull a barge with a missile to the coast of Alaska.

[New Dawn]

26. Its time to withdraw all US troops from the Korean peninsula.

And let the Korean people solve their own problems.

[SpartanDem]

30. You want to us abandon an ally?

[New Dawn]

32. That "ally" was a right-wing dictatorship throughout most of its existence.

Its military was under the control of the US (and technically still is "during war", and of course, the US is still technically at war with the North). The right-wingers from the old dictatorship still rule South Korea via the "Grand National Party", which is part of the same international political organization as the US Republican Party. They imprisoned, tortured, and executed large numbers of dissidents during the dictatorship and still smash dissent and rig elections today. I do not want those types of reactionary scumbags as "allies."

[defendandprotect]

36. Didn't Kissinger design the 38th parallel deal . . which split the country in two

about as illogically as could be done???

In fact, we should bring ALL our troops home from all over the

world -- been out there since the alleged end of WWII --

but more like the beginning of American empire post WWII --

American empire/Nazi style --

[24601]

92. Kissinger? While a Grad Student at Harvard? That doesn't

seem plausible, even with Internet standards of proof.

Here's his Nobel.org Bio: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1973/kissinger-bio.html

[defendandprotect]

126. No . . . it was Dean Rusk and Charles Bonesteel . . . with no advice from experts . . .

On August 10, 1945 two young officers – Dean Rusk and Charles Bonesteel – were assigned the task of creating an American occupation zone. Working on extremely short notice and completely unprepared for the task, they used a National Geographic map to decide on the 38th parallel; they chose it because it divided the country approximately in half but would leave the capital Seoul under American control. No experts on Korea were consulted and the two men were unaware that forty years previous, Japan and Russia had discussed sharing Korea along the same parallel; Rusk later said that had he known, he would have chosen a different line. Regardless, the decision was hastily written into General Order Number One for the administration of postwar Japan.

Read about it recently . . . knew it was someone quite unlikely . . .

I meant to put a /? after Kissinger's name hoping that someone else might know
who was responsible.

Thanks!

http://wiki.galbijim.com/Division_of_Korea
"End of WWI" -- second paragraph
--------------------------------------------

[proteus_lives]

71. Great Idea.

You don't like several of their governments so let's abandon millions of people to the prospect of communist slavery.

[Seeking Serenity]

103. The US is not now, nor has it ever been, at war with NK

South Korea was, and still is, in a "state of war" with North Korea, as no peace treaty between the two has ever been executed but merely a "cease fire."

We are not "still technically" at war with the North.

[14thColony]

59. We effectively did some time ago

All that's left of 2nd Infantry Division in South Korea is one (1) heavy brigade. That's it. They rest of the division is based in Ft Lewis, WA with forwarding addresses of Afghanistan and Iraq.

At full mobilization the Army of the Republic of Korea fields 30 divisions, PLUS another 50 combat arms brigades or brigade equivalents. Compare that to the entire US Army, which totals 10 divisions. And ROKA brigades and divisions are modelled on US Army structure, so they're not smaller and their equipment is comparable to ours.

Our one brigade, no matter how good they might be, is of negligible value to the overall defense of South Korea. The ROK Army would make mincemeat of a North Korean invasion all by themselves.

[robinlynne]

29. That sounds like a threat to attack US troops in south korea.

[Indenturedebtor]

38. Reminds me of that cop who recently shot a dacshund

... well that's who we would be if we took the bait anyways.

What a nutjob.

[Hulk]

34. This crazy butt hole is asking to get his ass kicked....

...and perhaps take his country down with him. This is serious.

I don't know what happened to piss him off so ugly bad, but he sounds like he really wants to provoke the US NOW!

Didn't Hillary Clinton visit NKorea? I'm wondering what gives? Not enough info. Just lots of threats coming out of the crazy farm.

[14thColony]

60. This is very likely for internal political gain

The intended audience is most probably in North Korea, not North America. Tough guy talk as factions jockey for power now that the chief executive position is in doubt.

For a parallel, witness how all the US presidential hopefuls tried to out-tough each other over how many ways they would nuke Iran if President Ahmadinejad so much as cast a nasty look in the general direction of Israel. The audience then was in the US, not in Tehran. I suspect the same applies here.

[defendandprotect]

35. Bush/Cheney succeeded even beyond our wildest fears--!!!

8 years of warmongering finally produced this --

and if they did this .... could we say they were morally wrong?

After all, the US is the first and only government to have ever

reined down nuclear weapons on other people . . .

[SpartanDem]

39. Yes we could say that

we were more than justified in the use of nukes. Japan attacked us last time I checked and the loss of life from an invasion would've dwarfed the losses from the bombs

[defendandprotect]

43. Every adviser to Truman, except probably the Nazi McCloy, said NO . . .

including IKE --

Japan attacked us after we arranged to cripple their oil supplies, as I recall.
Wasn't that it?

Yeah . . . and we've been "more than justified" to interfere in every other nation's
affairs, political and financial, in order to move their assets to our accounts.

No one is "justified" in using nukes -- and certainly not on civilians in 1945!

The tired old alibies are over -- too many people know the truth now.

[14thColony]

61. Of course last time I checked

history also shows that Japan had tried to surrender to the Allies at least three times, starting as early as January 1945. With the PURPLE and MAGIC transcripts now declassified and open for study at the National Archive, the cat's out of the bag on that one. According to people high up in the Truman Admin (to include J. Dulles), the biggest fear in early 1945 was that we wouldn't be able to keep Japan in the game long enough to use a nuke on them, which we wanted as a demonstaration to the Soviets to keep them in check in the post-war era.

After the bombs were dropped, suddenly and on queue we accepted Japan's final offer of surrender, since we had no further need to keep the war going.

A matter of public record in the testimonies of senior members of the Truman Administration, now verified by the declassified MAGIC and PURPLE intercepts of Japanese military and diplomatic communications, available at your convenience in the National Archives.

[corpseratemedia]

90. My late father would have attested to what you've written

since the individual he "worked" under knew about the attempts to surrender and placating the populace with overhead flights before the ones that dropped the bombs

but noone believed him 30, 40 or 50 years ago

thank you for your post

[14thColony]

112. It would have been fascinating to talk to him

I'm afraid virtually anyone with direct knowledge of that chain of decisions is gone now.

[Pavulon]

116. They all wrote books..some of which are critical of the process

none of which claim what you posted.

[14thColony]

121. The very existence of MAGIC was highly classified

under the ULTRA compartmentalization. Very few people in the FDR or Truman administrations were even aware MAGIC existed. Therefore the only people who could ever discuss or write on the pros and cons of the various Japanese surrender offers were the people who were cleared for ULTRA. Considering the bulk of the MAGIC transcripts were only declassified long after that handful of people were dead, it would stand to reason that this was at least one key reason why none of their memoirs discussed this - they weren't allowed to.

[Pavulon]

114. I have not seen one credible historian publish that. only kooks.

when it shows up somewhere other than counterpunch, maybe. That is revisionist and you forgot the links to the documents you reference. There are millions of them, you may want to point them out.

[corpseratemedia]

119. I'm sorry I'm not sure whether you could be responding to me however

here is some information and a very well respected "revision" of the planning to use the bomb



http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/Bombs_August.html

snip<...But why? Gar Alperovitz, whose research on that question is unmatched (The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, Knopf, 1995), concluded, based on the papers of Truman, his chief adviser James Byrnes, and others, that the bomb was seen as a diplomatic weapon against the Soviet Union. Byrnes advised Truman that the bomb "could let us dictate the terms of ending the war." The British scientist P.M.S. Blackett, one of Churchill's advisers, wrote after the war that dropping the atomic bomb was "the first major operation of the cold diplomatic war with Russia."

There is also evidence that domestic politics played an important role in the decision. In his recent book, Freedom From Fear: The United States, 1929-1945 (Oxford, 1999), David Kennedy quotes Secretary of State Cordell Hull advising Byrnes, before the Potsdam conference, that "terrible political repercussions would follow in the U.S." if the unconditional surrender principle would be abandoned. The President would be "crucified" if he did that, Byrnes said. Kennedy reports that "Byrnes accordingly repudiated the suggestions of Leahy, McCloy, Grew, and Stimson," all of whom were willing to relax the "unconditional surrender" demand just enough to permit the Japanese their face-saving requirement for ending the war...> snip

http://www.amazon.com/Decision-Use-Atomic-Bomb/dp/067976285X

   
The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, Gar Alperovitz,New York: Knopf, 1995

here in fact is another supporting comment (not me) from another individual (from the same Amazon site under the comments section) whose father had a very similar backround including the education:

I buy much of it, because my father was there, March 27, 2006
By (I took out his name and city but you can see it for yourself on the Amazon site)- See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
My Father was drafted out of Harvard Graduate school. He scored very highly on IQ tests and was given a very sensitive job in the Ultra Code breaking project. He reported to a Lt General in the US army and was classified as an Army Intelligence officer. The story he told me before this book was ever published is identical to the general outlines of the story as related here by Alperovitz. He has always said that the Japanese were clearly looking to end the war a couple of months before the bomb was dropped. He also said that the general US military command was of the opinion that the Invasion of Japan was not going to be necessary Regardless of the presence of the Atom bomb or not. He cannot speak to what might or might not have been going on in Washington DC but he himself read the decrypts of Japanese messages being sent to intermediaries whom were charged with approaching the Americans with the intent to discontinue the war. He has said that the general consensus of the upper echelons of the military was that the bomb was used to intimidate the Russians who were behaving quite menacingly rather than to save American lives which might be lost in an invasion. He also said that he was always surprised that "nobody wrote a book about it". He was unaware of Alperovitz's work until I found it while in college.




I will also add that my own father was unaware of Alperwitz's book, since it was about 50 years before it was published that he was speaking about what was apparently some point of contention within the military at that time. And per my father, it wasn't him who was talking about the flights, it was the person who he answered to. This was during the time before the OSS was transformed, and my father was part of a team who designed and rebuilt facilities, among other things.

I believe that 14thcolony recommended the National Archives if you'd like to revisit this.

[Art_from_Ark]

37. The mouse that roared

No doubt they want attention, but they also need to keep their population worked up against a common enemy to get them to forget about the squalid conditions they have to live in.

[Old and In the Way]

41. Sounds like good, old-fashioned extortion.

NK seems to specialize in that. Pay us and we won't nuke you. Let them bluster, but the minute they start fueling their rockets, we should assume the worst and re-landscape their launch infrastructure.

[jimlup]

50. mean little dogs show the most aggressive posturing

Then back down and run as soon as there is even a hint of a real fight. This is unfortunate. Let's hope they are rational players.

[SKKY]

51. No they won't.

If they were going to, they would have already.

[951-Riverside]

52. China, China, China and China

They fund this regime, refuse to take a stance against them, probably helped them build the nuclear program and they water down any resolution sanctioning them. The question is if NK launches which way is China going?

As I see it they have a few options.

1. When the US responds to NK's nuclear launch, they launch on the US as well effectively destroying the economic and national stability/security of their country.
2. Do nothing and pretend like nothing happened
3. Act in the interest of their own country's future by preventing NK from getting to the point of launching a nuclear weapon by any means nessisary.

[Pavulon]

95. China has little second strike capability, not a "major" power.

If they launch the subs at sea kill every human there, all billion plus. This is a space where fucking around is not an option. They launch they die.

[winyanstaz]

53. Someone needs to tell this little tinpot dictator

that if he launches a single missile on American soil that we have enough nukes to turn his whole nation into a green glass parking lot and we will.

[14thColony]

62. They are very aware of our strategic nuclear capabilities

The leadership has access to Google after all.

This is for internal political posturing. I doubt they expect us to take it seriously, since it's not really directed at us.

[jberryhill]

106. Sounds more like noise

...to mask any internal dissension (such as it is in NK) over the succession of power.

They are just externalizing.

[AngryAmish]

63. Looks like we get to introduce a new generation to "duck and cover"

Way to go, Bush!

[shadowknows69]

66. If they have anything that could threaten the continental U.S.

Then they got it from Dick Cheney.

[hedgehog]

67. The North Korean mindset reminds me of the Japanese Army pre-Pearl Harbor.

The Japanese Navy wanted nothing to do with a war with the US because its officers had trained in the US and understood what would happen. The Army officers lacked knowledge of the US and figured that if Pearl Harbor was attacked, the US would do the logical thing and withdraw from the Far East.

In this case, the North Koreans are convinced that they fought the US to a standstill in 1953. They think the North Vietnamese also defeated the US. They do not understand the reluctance of the American people to engage in an unnecessary war versus what would happen if the US was actually attacked. If anything, Bush's success in getting th US to invade Iraq by tying Iraq to 9/11 should be a warning to the North Koreans. Our best bet at this point may be to get North Korean policy makers to tour the US.

Wouldn't it be great if Obama did just that, invited Kim Il Jung for a state visit and tour?

[shadowknows69]

70. They should make Kim tour Iraq

And just have some general say to him: "Now imagine this, only bigger, and with fallout."

[no limit]

72. ahahahaahahaha. Those north koreans are cute

[harun]

74. *yawn*

[DarthDem]

75. Some Excellent and Knowledgeable Posts in This Thread

. . . but I'm yawning too. This is all for internal purposes, as 14thColony pointed out eloquently. Even the North Koreans aren't this crazy, and even if they were, they don't have the capability to accomplish this "war." I'm interested to see how Obama will handle the "DPRK."

[harun]

79. Yah, their number one priority is regime survival. They have more guns pointing at them

then one could comprehend. Hence, they wouldn't start trouble because it would mean the end of their regime.

Won't stop them from talking big talk though. 0.0% chance of a war.

[mainegreen]

78. DPRK intends to do no such thing.

This is all just a really fucking complicated verbal dance to them while they get The Newest Shining Asshole into position to take power from The Glorious Previous Delusional Kimhole. One thing you can say about North Korea: not stupid at international political strategy. Paranoid? Yes. Stupid? No.

They've got two US reporters, a successful 'nuclear test', a dying leader, and an ascendant son. They are simple rolling up, spikes outward like a hedgehog, until the transition is complete.

[Deja Q]

80. Logical.

[Odin2005]

84. HAHAHAHAHA!!! These people are delusional.

:rofl:

[HughBeaumont]

85. How hasn't anyone within the DPRK put a price on Lil' Kim's head yet?

I'm thinking he's either supremely batshit insane or is posturing to get money. I'm thinking option 2.

I'm just waiting for his people to revolt and that country to collapse.

[Duer 157099]

96. "wipe out all its imperialist aggressor troops no matter where they are in the world."

OK, there's the proof of delusional thinking. Does he have any idea how many troops we have all over the world?

Unless they plan to blow the whole planet up?

[high density]

98. Wake me up when they attack

I think it will be a very long nap.

[Old Hob]

115. I wish this POS would just go for it. I'm tired of his incessant ranting.

[Vinca]

117. Finally . . . something productive for Sarah Palin to do.

Get her binoculars out and fire up the front porch rocker.

[NuttyFluffers]

124. blah, blah, blah, yakety, shmackety. blah, blah, blah, yakety, shmackety.

same little shit, different fucking day. no one in Seoul gives this guy a second thought. in fact, many newspapers here give the advice to put on the sanctions with the other 5 parties and just ignore them. who else better to know how Korean diplomacy works than other Koreans?

[RedCloud]

125. Korea can get a missile about 200 miles. Wait for Continental drift!

And China probably has a lot of underground cities, unlike our great capitalist homeland with a whopping total of zero. We, not they, view our own humans as expendable.